A myriad of seemingly unrelated events and loose ends are converging in a manner that points in the direction of a huge win for Russian diplomacy in the Middle East, and we only need to connect the dots to see this scenario unfolding.

What dots, one might ask?

Henry Kissinger made it law for America to protect Israel. In his shuttle diplomacy trips in the lead up to the Camp David agreement, Kissinger has basically removed the USSR from the position of a superpower and a key partner on the negotiating table between Arabs and the Israelis and reduced its role to zilch. The ensuing dismantling of the USSR and the emergence of the so-called “New World Order” meant that Israel was to maintain its military superiority.

However, with the rise of Axis of Resistance in general and Hezbollah in particular, Israel’s technical military edge proved unable to provide Israel with any real security. As a matter of fact, it seems to have done just the opposite. Israel has never ever been under the kind of existential threat that it faces now, with an estimated hundred thousand Hezbollah missiles, if not more, poised to hit Israeli targets as far as Eilat.

And because America had been such a biased supporter of Israel for so long, it has lost its stature as a non-partisan arbitrator and mediator. In reality therefore, whilst America tried as hard as possible to enable Israel to impose its own peace, under its own terms, in practice, it has not been able to provide Israel with any peace under anyone’s terms.

Off to Syria.

Syria has been deadlocked in a war for more than five years. The Russian intervention that commenced in late September 2015 took the conflict, for the first time, into a direction in which the Syrian Government and its allies gained the clear upper hand.

Then, and in the height of the military operation, and seemingly just a tad before achieving and declaring victory, Russia suddenly declared a major pullout and eventually a ceasefire. Many questions were raised, and even the staunch and extremely savvy ally of Russia, Hezbollah chief Nasrallah himself has questioned publicly in a recent speech the rationale behind the Russian stand and asked: ”Who has benefited from the ceasefire?” Nasrallah was obviously referring to the fact that Al-Nusra Front and other groups have taken advantage of the ceasefire to bolster their positions and even to gain some territory in some regions.

In as much as the Russian intervention in its speed, accuracy and effectiveness has stunned the world, especially NATO, so did the pullback and ceasefire. Why did President Putin suddenly decide to scale down the military offensive, was a question that many analysts asked and tried to make speculations about.

Short-sighted analysts, especially those who love to hate Russia, found in this a golden opportunity to lash at Russia and accuse President Putin of backing off and letting Syria down. But would Putin truly back down after he had put his global political reputation on the line? Was he really expecting the Americans to come clean and work with him on identifying who is who on the ground? Would he back off after Russian lives were lost both in Syria and in the tragic jetliner crash in Sinai, and which was done in retaliation to Russia’s military action in Syria? Would Putin risk being seen in a negative way by his own people after he had risen to the level of a rescuer and hero? Last but not least, would Putin leave Turkey, and Erdogan specifically, “unpunished” after Turkey deliberately downed a Russian plane and killed its pilot?

The collective and individual answer to all of the above questions is a categorical NO. So why did Putin do it then? There seemed to be no clear answer; at least not for a while.

And of course, we cannot mention Turkey without allowing the train of events to stop at the Turkish station for a very thorough analysis.

In my analysis of the failure of “War On Syria”, which effectively began to take shape over the last two years or so, and especially after the emergence of Daesh, I had been reiterating that different elements of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” who were bundled together, united only by their hatred for Syria and her President, have realized that they were unable to have their collective dream materialized. They thus resorted to pursuing their own individual dreams and/or to implement some contingency plans. In that context, among other things, Daesh declared mutiny on its former allies and captured oil fields in order to be able to self-finance.

When Erdogan looked at Daesh, he could see a double-edged sword. And irrespective of politics, Erdogan’s fundamentalist ideology is not very different from that of Daesh, and according to this doctrine, putting everything else aside, Daesh members are regarded as brethren. Furthermore, the fact that Daesh and the Kurds were in conflict was something that Erdogan could not ignore. Erdogan’s fear of the Kurdish factor is very high, and the fact that America was helping some Kurdish factions has angered Erdogan to an extreme. America cannot be a friend of Turkey and the Kurds at the same time, Erdogan has said on many occasions, both directly and indirectly.

At the same time, America was growing very frustrated with Erdogan, and in turn, played its own cat and mouse game within the Daesh-Kurdish-Turkish triangle; favouring any side at a time that was convenient and suitable for its agenda.

But for Erdogan, the issue was becoming very critical. Turkey is now under attack with a string of explosions going off here and there; some purportedly perpetrated by Kurds and others by Daesh. Not only has Erdogan’s gamble in Syria failed, but he has brought the conflict home; at least partially, and the economic boom and the “zero problems” policy that crowned his early years of power were all getting eroded by the quagmire that Erdogan found himself in.

To make it worse for Erdogan, after he downed Russia’s Su-24 in November 2015, he was expecting NATO’s support, but NATO’s response was clear and brief. He was told that he needed to sort out his own problems with Russia.

He tried to use the refugees as a trump card, but this could not go far enough. Apart from the few billion dollars he was given by the EU, which is in relative terms a petty bribe, Erdogan was unable to even clinch Turkey’s longtime aspiration of becoming an EU member.

Erdogan found himself cornered, abandoned, under attack, facing severe Russian sanctions and an economic slump. He needed an exit strategy; an exit from trouble and into a totally new era.

In the meantime, Israeli PM Netanyahu made an unprecedented number of trips to Moscow. Why? Many asked.

The dust has not even began to settle yet, but there are markers that indicate that we are about to see a huge shift in Middle Eastern politics, conflicts and alliances.

We are now hearing formal Turkish statements accusing the USA of plotting the recent failed coup attempt. Turkey has even imposed a lockdown on Incirlik airbase, a NATO airbase, in which America stock piles nuclear weapons, and has even cut off power supplies to the base. This is tantamount to declaring mutiny on NATO. When Erdogan said that the coup was a “gift from God” to cleanse the army, he might as well have also said that it was a gift from God for him to show his resentment to the USA.

We also hear of counter-rumours that Erdogan has staged the failed coup in order to cleanse the military from elements that are not loyal to him. Whilst this scenario cannot either be confirmed or discounted, Erdogan is not mincing either his words or his actions with his NATO boss the USA.

It is important to note here that in the last few weeks, Erdogan and Netanyahu made up, and furthermore, the Turkish-Russian relationship was normalized. Erdogan has been seen to be making a turn, and perhaps a U-turn in regard to his policies in Syria, but for what ends?

For anyone to make a decisive win in Syria, the city of Aleppo holds the key. Whoever takes full control of Aleppo will win the war. The Syrian-Russian coalition has the upper hand to win the battle of Aleppo, but at what civilian cost? The other way to win it is to bring Erdogan down to his knees; and this seems to be what has happened. If Erdogan seals Turkey’s borders, the terrorists will be doomed.

If we were to connect the above main dots, ignoring many other minor dots which do not need to be discussed individually, we can only see a Middle Eastern Russian-brokered masterplan coming to fruition.

What puts Russia in the position to be able to muster such a plan is the fact that Russia is highly respected and is on fairly good terms with all major players. After mending relationships with Turkey, Russia is now on very good terms not only with Turkey, but also with Syria, Israel and Iran. The foolhardy foreign American policies in the Middle East have turned America into a force that cannot be trusted even by its own allies.

Putin is adamant on fighting terrorism. Whether he is able to do this or not is another story, but strategically speaking, he knows well that the military fight against terrorism cannot be won, let alone properly conducted, if other players in the region are in a state of conflict.

According to this analysis, we are on the verge of seeing a Russian plan unfolding, a plan that will not only form a foundation for ending the “War On Syria”, but also one that will seek an Arab/Israeli settlement.

The plan will have to be based on a win-win situation for all parties involved. The Saudis (and Qataris) will be the only losers. They will probably be left out in the cold and hung to dry. No one really wants to or needs to appease them any longer. Their clout is shrinking, and so are their resources. If anything, the war on terror, if it takes form under a Russian umbrella, may need to confront Al-Saud’s sponsorship to the spread of religious radicalism.

The avalanche of events has started, and as the USA is being shown the exit door by its closest allies, Russia is coming in as the only power that has the ability of resolving long standing niggling issues and cleaning up America’s mess.

After Turkish President Recep Erdogan’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg, Ankara says the next administration in Syria should be inclusive and secular so that everyone can live with their beliefs. This is as close as Turkey has ever come to accept that Assad has a legitimate role to play.

It is the ‘morning-after’ that needs to be watched when a crucial summit meeting takes place. And, as details become available, it emerges that the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan at St. Petersburg on August 9 has been exceptionally productive.

Neither side showed interest in labeling the qualitatively new level of relationship in hackneyed terms, but then, it doesn’t matter whether one calls it ‘alliance’, ‘quasi-alliance’ or ‘entente’. What matters is that a profoundly meaningful relationship is commencing.

Russia and Turkey go back far in history and do not need foreplay. The critical mass developed within 48 hours of the conversation in St. Petersburg.

Within a day of Erdogan proposing and Putin accepting the idea of a ‘mechanism’ comprising diplomats, military and intelligence officials of the two sides to discuss the nitty-gritty of Syrian conflict, a composite Turkish delegation took off for Moscow to meet Russian counterparts on August 11.

Evidently, Erdogan traveled to St. Petersburg with an ‘action plan’. In fact, he was accompanied by spy chief Hakan Fidan.

Turkey wants the two sides to take concrete steps. The discussions in Moscow are expected to set the ball rolling.

Again, the Russian decision to convert Hmeymim Air Base as a permanent fully-operational military base in Syria has nothing to do with Erdogan’s visit, but also everything to do with the Turkish-Russian rapprochement.

The Russian Defense Ministry since disclosed the details of the plan for Hmeymim, which includes expanding aircraft apron, improving the air strip, building barracks and a hospital, assigning extra space for large transport aircraft, installation of new radio equipment including air traffic control systems, creating new sites for deployment of Pantsir surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon systems and so on.

It was in August last year that Russia and Syria signed an agreement allowing Moscow to use Hmeymim for an indefinite period free of charge, but, interestingly, it was on August 9 that an entry in the official data base of Russian Duma showed that Putin has submitted the document for ratification by parliament.

Without doubt, a fully operational base in Hmeymim, which is located virtually on the Turkish border, signifies a major geopolitical decision that factors in the Russian-Turkish rapprochement.

At the talks in St. Petersburg, an exchange took place on Turkey resuming operations in Syrian air space (with a view to attack Islamic State), which were suspended following the shooting down of a Russian jet last November.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu announced on August 10 that Ankara “will again, in an active manner, with its planes take part in operations.”

“Let’s fight against the terrorist group together, so that we can clear it out as soon as possible,” Cavusoglu urged. He added, “We will discuss all the details (with Russia). We have always called on Russia to carry out anti-Daesh (IS) operations together.”

In an upbeat note, he pointed out: “Many countries are engaged in Syria actively. There could be mistakes. In order to prevent that, we need to put into practice the solidarity and cooperation (mechanism) between us (Turkey and Russia) including sharing of real-time intelligence.”

A new ‘comfort level’ is apparent in Cavusoglu’s words. At the military and intelligence level, Moscow senses that Turkey has begun rolling back its support for Syrian extremist groups.

On its part, Moscow announced on August 10 that humanitarian corridors leading out of Aleppo will remain open daily for a limited 3-hour period. Put differently, the military operations to capture the city will continue in top gear and remain top priority.

Of course, the whole world knows that the battle for Aleppo will determine the course of the war. Importantly, for Turkey, it is in Aleppo that its intentions toward the Syrian regime will be put to test.

The reports from Tehran, citing military sources, highlight that in the heavy fighting in the western and southern parts of Aleppo, where Saudi-backed rebel groups have launched a massive attack to break the siege, Russian jets are relentlessly bombing locations of Jeish al-Fatah.

Of course, the bottom line is about the peace process and here the million dollar question concerns the role of President Assad in a political transition.

In a nuanced stance, Cavusoglu said in Ankara on August 11 that Turkey and Russia agree that the next Syrian regime should be all-inclusive. “We think the same as Russia on Syria’s future. The next administration in Syria should be inclusive and cover everyone,” he said, adding it “should be a secular one.”

“We always say only a political solution (in Syria) can be permanent, in terms of not hurting civilians, separating moderate opposition from terrorist groups and (ensuring) humanitarian aid… We are on the same page with Russia that Syria should have an administration under which everyone can live with their beliefs,” he said.

This is as close as Turkey has ever come to accept that Assad has a legitimate role to play. Cavusoglu spoke in full knowledge of Erdogan’s one-on-one with Putin.

As the veteran Middle East hand Robert Fisk wrote, “There is a long list of the potential losers in the theater of St. Petersburg. First, Isis (IS) and al-Qaeda/Nusra/Fatah el-Sham, and all the other Islamist outfits now fighting the regime in Syria, who suddenly find that their most reliable arms conduit has teamed up with their most ferocious enemy… Russian air force. Then there’s the Saudi and Qatari billionaires who have been supplying the cash and guns for the Sunni warriors who are trying to overthrow both Damascus and Baghdad, and humble the Shia of Iran, Syria… and Lebanon”.

Having said that, Moscow and Ankara still have to cover some distance to carry the momentum forward, and it is here that the United States comes in as ‘sleeping partner’. The point is, Erdogan has his ‘red lines’, too – Kurdish issue.

If Erdogan radically downsizes Turkey’s support for extremist groups and keeps a balanced, open mind regarding Assad’s participation in the talks, Moscow (and Tehran) will go the extra mile to help him hold the ‘red lines’ on Kurdistan.

On the other hand, Syrian Kurds are also on a leash that is held by Uncle Sam and whether he holds it tight or not will depend on a host of considerations that lie in the womb of time.

All in all, Putin played his cards brilliantly by hosting a successful visit by Erdogan, with emphasis on putting the relationship back on track on an upward trajectory. He showed no interest to burden the delicate rapprochement by injecting airy geopolitics into it.

Instead, Putin trained his thoughts on ‘doables’ and ‘deliverables’ – and in reviving cordial personal ties with Edogan. The ‘body language’ was notable.

Moscow understands that the verve and dynamism of the partnership will ultimately depend on how far Russia meets Erdogan’s critical needs, as he charts out independent foreign policies in the downstream of the existential crisis Turkey went through.

Thus, there is a heavy accent on trade and investment and economic cooperation, which make both sides stakeholders.

In political terms, Putin held a strong hand, given Moscow’s decisive role to tip off Ankara about the impending coup of July 15.

But he point-blank refused to anticipate the complex Turkish-American tango, on whose outcome so much depends how comfortable Turkey’s future habitation is going to be within the western alliance system.

Most certainly, Putin won’t hold grudge against Erdogan if he flaunts the ‘St. Petersburg card’ – in defence of his faith, the throne and the Fatherland – when the US Secretary of State John Kerry visits for the poker game on August 24.

Late last month, Jabhat al-Nusra (aka, the Al-Nusra Front), Al-Qaida’s Syrian arm, announced that it was severing ties with Al-Qaida and renaming itself Jabhat Al-Fatah Al-Sham (the Front for the Conquest of Syria).

In a video, the group’s leader, Abu Mohamed Al-Jolani, explained that the group’s association with al-Qaida permitted the outside powers intervening in the Syrian conflict to label it as an Islamic terrorist group.

The Guardian quoted Al-Jolani as saying that the name change is intended “to remove the excuse used by the international community – spearheaded by Russia – to bombard and displace Muslims in the Levant: that they are targeting Al-Nusra Front, which is associated with Al-Qaida.”

He further explained that the new policy was an attempt to have the group removed from international terror lists and to allow it to be perceived as a more acceptable, “moderate”, alternative to its main competitor, ISIS.

Al-Nusra shares certain common goals with ISIS in seeking to overthrow the legitimate and secular government of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and replace it with a radical Salafist/ Wahabist one. It has also expressed hatred for the United States and other Western governments although it is being supported by the US and NATO. Writing for the National Interest in November 2015, Geopolitical Analyst Daniel DePetris explained:

“Like its Jihadist competitors in ISIS, Al-Nusra is composed of highly motivated individuals and commanders who would like nothing more than to strike at the United States or at targets in Europe. Jabhat Al-Nusra shares the same, minority-within-a-minority Salafi-Jihadist interpretation of Islam as ISIS, despises any and all sectarian groups outside of Syria’s majority Sunni community and has engaged in the same kind of atrocities that have made ISIS’s Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi the most wanted international terrorist alive.”

Though it has focused its attacks more directly on Syrian government forces and their symbolic and physical centers of power, it maintains a similar ruthlessness to that of ISIS. In its World Report 2016, Human Rights Watch noted that both groups were “were responsible for systematic and widespread violations, including targeting civilians, kidnappings, and executions” in Syria. ISIS and Al-Nusra both impose strict and discriminatory rules on women and girls, and have actively recruited child soldiers, according to the report.

Smokescreen or Strategy?

In its recent re-branding, Al-Nusra also seems to be evaluating the political calculus of the war imposed on Syria and acknowledging the recent gains by Syrian government forces and their allies — Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. With President Assad strengthening his position and the rebel forces in disarray, Al-Jolani may be making a bid to unify the opposition by projecting a less militant image to the outside world.

Al-Nusra Front leader Mohammed Al-Jolani undated photo released online on Thursday, July 28, 2016 to announce a video message that the militant group is changing name, and claims it will have no more ties with Al-Qaida.

Still, it’s unclear what this apparent break with Al-Qaida actually means. At the announcement of the group’s new name, Al-Jolani was joined by a high level associate of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the current leader of Al-Qaida, creating the impression that the changes are more tactical than strategic. Ayman Al-Zawahri, head of Al-Qaida, delivers a statement in a video which was seen online.

Smadar Perry, an Israeli journalist known to have close ties to Israeli intelligence sources, even hinted that Israel’s Mossad urged this new path on Al-Nusra. In an opinion piece posted by YNet on Monday, Perry wrote:

“It may be that this separation is just a smokescreen, and that Al-Julani will keep in touch with Al-Qaeda in secret. It may also be that Jabhat-Al-Nusra have received an intelligence analysis from a very certain organization that told it to prepare for the day after Assad leaves power.”

The White House has a hard time buying this turnover. They’re in a test period with us, said an official spokesperson, not dismissing outright the possibility of local fighters joining the American-led coalition against ISIS.

If they make a show of force in the field, and Jabhat-Al-Nusra’s dissociation leads to Al-Qaeda’s further weakening in Afghanistan, and if Israel provides its supposed intelligence about Al-Julani – Hezbollah and Assad swear he’s a Mossad agent – Al-Nusra may become another piece of the puzzle that is the new Syria.

In the original Hebrew version of the same analysis, Perry noted the likelihood that Syria will be divided in “three or four cantons.” This has always been the goal for Tel Aviv, which sees Syria as one of the few remaining Arab states that can threaten its interests and security.

Israeli soldiers secure an area where a mortar which was fired during clashes between Syrian rebels and President Bashar Al-Assad’s government forces in the Quneitra province hit in a community in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. For the first time in the Syrian civil war, militants linked to Al-Qaida are positioned on Israel’s doorstep.

In Israel’s utterly warped view, peace on its northern border would be guaranteed if Syria can be splintered into warring factions. It’s an approach championed at the onset of the civil war in 2011 by Daniel Pipes, an ultra-right-wing, pro-Israel, Neo-Con who serves as president of Middle East Forum, a Zionist think tank. Arguing that “the continuing Syrian conflict offers benefits to the West,” he explained:

“As Sunni Islamists fight Shiites, both sides are weakened and their lethal rivalry lessens their capabilities to trouble the outside world. By inspiring restive minorities (Sunnis in Iran, Kurds and Shiites in Turkey), continued fighting in Syria could also weaken Islamic governments.”

He further noted:

“Nothing in the constitutions of Western states requires them to get involved in every foreign conflict; sitting this one out will prove to be a smart move. In addition to the moral benefit of not being accountable for horrors yet to come, staying away permits the West eventually to help its only true friends in Syria, the country’s liberals.”

In a 2012 email released by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton offered an Iran-focused variant of this approach:

“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”

The Al-Nusra-Israel Alliance

Ultimately, Israel doesn’t care much about what happens in Syria as long as it can maintain a puppet protectorate along its Golan Heights border. Israel began occupying and administering the region in the Six-Day War of 1967, and it officially annexing the Golan Heights in 1981. Israel continues to refuse to return the territory to Syria despite near universal consensus that the occupation is illegal under international law. Further, the discovery of potential gas deposits there has coincided with a rise in Israeli settlement expansion in recent years.

Examining the Al-Nusra-Israeli alliance in the region, it’s clear that the bonds between the two parties have been exceedingly close. Israel maintains a border camp for the families of Syrian fighters. Reporters have documented Israeli Defense Forces commandos entering Syrian territory to rendez-vous with Syrian rebels.

Others have photographed meetings between Israeli military personnel and Al-Nusra commanders at the Quneitra Crossing, the ceasefire line that separates the Syrian-controlled territory and the Israeli-occupied territory in the Golan Heights.

According to the December 2014 report, UNDOF observed two Israeli soldiers ‘opening the technical fence gate and letting two individuals pass from the [Syrian] to the [Israeli] side’ on October 27th . Unlike most fighters seen entering the Israeli side, these individuals were not wounded and the purpose of their visit remains a mystery.

UNDOF ‘sporadically observed armed members of the opposition interacting’ with the Israeli military across the ceasefire line, the report states.

The next UNDOF report, released in March, notes that UN forces witnessed Israeli soldiers delivering material aid to armed Syrian opposition groups. These were presumably supplies and equipment designed either to help the rebels in their fight against the Syrian government forces or to improve communications between Israeli and rebel forces.

Israel’s Divide-and-Conquer Strategy

Israel’s support for radical terror groups is a long-term strategy it’s exploited in multiple theaters. Its ultimate purpose is to weaken a strong foe.

In terms of Hezbollah, Israel hadn’t anticipated that the Lebanese militant group would grow to become a much more powerful and dangerous foe than the PLO had ever been in Lebanon.

Israeli soldiers walks near the border with Syria near the site of the April 2015 Israeli air strikes, in the Israeli controlled Golan Heights.

The strategy worked better regarding Hamas because it has never been able to dominate Fatah. The two have maintained a wary and draining battle of wills over the decades, with neither being able to oust the other. This has created a rift that has substantially weakened the Palestinians and their cause. Still, Hamas has trained its sights on Israel as well and become an even more militant foe than Fatah ever was.

Thus, Israel’s strategy of forging an alliance with Al-Nusra and strengthening it so that it can wage a formidable fight against Assad, is part and parcel of a longstanding goal of dividing Syria. Israel erroneously hopes that these savage, militant, extremist group will dominate the Golan region and maintain stability and security there. However, Israel neglects what almost always happens to these golems: Once they are created they take on a life of their own. The creator loses control of his creation, which wreaks havoc and even turns against him.

Just as it happened to Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague, and Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, so it happened with the U.S. alliance with the Afghan Mujahadeen, and the Israeli alliances with their own Arab proxies.

Israel’s alliance with Al-Nusra also points to the utter cynicism of its approach. While the rest of the world labels the group terrorists, and fights to prevent their terror attacks on Western soil, Israel looks only for its own advantage. There’s the old saying that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” but in Israel’s playbook, the saying goes: “The enemy of my friend may certainly be my friend.” This rings especially true when Israeli leaders warn the world about the threat of global jihad, while also cozying up to these savage Jihadis in their own corner of the world. The hypocrisy couldn’t be any more profound, making Israel one of the greatest state-sponsors of terror.

The U.S. and European countries seem to deliberately ignore Israel’s tactical embrace of the Jihadi movement. The Obama administration is even preparing to ink a new record-breaking military spending agreement with Israel that will up U.S. aid from the current $3 billion a year. The Israeli lunatic Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, demanded $5 billion per year over the life of the 10-year deal, and the final amount will likely settle somewhere in the middle.

Only Israel gets away with such a level of cognitive dissonance in its alliance with the U.S. Any other ally that depended so profoundly on Washington for its security and existence wouldn’t dare risk endangering that relationship to forge an alliance with an enemy of the U.S. But not Israel. It forges its own path without regard for the interests of others, even its best friends. Such is the very true nature of the Zionist entity!

"Well, well, well.. I guess its not surprising the two bed mates, the Israelis and their head choppers, devil worshippers, the evil doers, the rodent sewage pigs that preach the rotten version of Islam, Yes the Saudi Wahhabis are supporting the kurds..
I can't believe how someone/anyone would preach, support this stinking ideology and keep a straight face.
Lord, Ive never felt so much hatred towards a group of people as this sons of satan.
Please do the world a favour and kill yourself!! DIED!! Inject yourself and your beloved ones with AIDS and died!! There is no place for your kind on this earth. Anyone with a brain HATES YOU!! --- Conscíous "

Kurdistan- The final chapter of the Empire’s plot against the Middle East

By Aram Mirzaei

2017-09-26. Last Sunday, the Kurdish regional authority defied the world and went forward with the scheduled independence referendum in Northern Iraq. With the definite result of the referendum not being official yet, there can be little doubt that an overwhelming majority of Kurds have voted Yes to independence. Despite Kurdish leaders announcing that the referendum is non-binding and that it is only the beginning of a negotiation with Baghdad on secession, Kurdish leaders hope that independence will be recognized by the central government sooner rather than later.

In the early stages of the Syrian conflict, and later during the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) many Western leaders claimed that the Middle East was facing changes. They were most likely referring to the establishment of an “Islamic emirate” in Eastern Syria and Western Iraq, which the Western powers helped to create. Today, the jihadist threat is on the verge of annihilation but peace still seems to be very far away from this conflict-ridden region. Why?

Where Moscow has had influence over the course of the Syrian war, Washington has had influence over the Iraqi conflict. Washington has used its influence in Iraq to exploit the situation in Syria in numerous ways. According to reliable sources, before the battle of Mosul began last year, the Iraqi military and its allies were planning to liberate the western Al-Anbar province, the largest and most troublesome province of Iraq. Only after liberating this crucial province which happens to border Syria, were the Iraqi Armed Forces to target the northern provinces of Kirkuk and Nineveh. According to sources in Baghdad, the US military command however rejected this idea and refused to offer any support if Nineveh (Mosul) was not liberated before Al-Anbar.

The US plan was simple: push ISIL towards Syria, lift the pressure of the Kurds by preventing ISIL to flee north and stir more trouble Russia and Syria’s way. Had Iraq decided to attack Al-Anbar first, ISIL would have been severely weakened across the Syrian-Iraqi border and pushed towards a well prepared Iraqi Kurdistan. This act would have also supported the Syrian Army and prevented the US from threatening to take Syria’s major oil fields in the eastern Deir Ezzor province. But most importantly, the border area would have probably been under Hashd Al-Shaabi control, thus preventing US troop movement between Syria and Iraq.

It is clear that the US has planned these moves and meticulously implemented it piece by piece in order to delay the inevitable fall of its ISIL proxies, only to be replaced by its newer and more “legitimate” (in the eyes of Western audiences) proxies.

The Kurdish narrative, one that has been hyped by the media to portray a people, fighting against impossible odds in one of the most “repressive regions” against the most “radical and violent” regimes in the world, has been almost universally accepted in the West. Today, many Western officials consider the Kurds as the only serious partner in the fight against ISIL, despite Kurdish regional government (KRG) president Masoud Barzani openly welcoming the ISIL occupation of Mosul in 2014 because it presented him with an opportunity to partition Iraq.

But Barzani’s shady relationship to ISIL is not a concern for Western powers when it comes to facts. Facts are that Kurds in Iraq control 20 % of Iraq’s oil resources and exports approximately 600 000 barrels per day via Turkey. The Oil has been a major source of dispute between the central government in Baghdad and the KRG especially since 2011 when the KRG signed a deal with US oil giant Exxon Mobil without the approval of the Central government.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the US goal of partitioning Syria and Iraq is to push back Russian and most importantly Iranian influence in the region, and tearing up the century old Sykes-Picot agreement in favour of a sectarian and ethnically divided Middle East is a perfect way to do it. Establishing a Kurdish state in Syria and Iraq would also open the path for further partitioning along sectarian lines – namely a Sunni Iraq and a Shia Iraq. This would leave both Syria and Iraq as severely weakened rump states and the Syria-Iraq-Iran-Hezbollah alliance in danger, but above all, it would guarantee the survival of Washington’s most precious gem in the region – Israel. It could be argued that the establishment of a Kurdish state was the primary goal right from the start of the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts, but that doesn’t take into account that the primary goal in Syria was to overthrow the Syrian government and control all of Syria rather than just parts of it. Partitioning Syria and Iraq was an option only after 2015 when it became evident that the Jihadist emirate project would fail and that Syria would survive.

Washington’s plan will however be challenged. Not only will the US have to deal with Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian resistance, but it will have to deal with its ally Turkey, who will not under any circumstances back down on this question.

Iranian opposition to the referendum has long been known and Tehran’s first reaction was to close it’s airspace to the Iraqi Kurdistan region. “With the request of Iraq’s central government, all Iranian flights to Sulaimaniyah and Erbil as well as flights passing through our airspace to the Kurdistan region have been suspended,” said Kayvan Khosravi, the spokesman for Iran’s Supreme National Security Council..

Several Iranian officials have also called out Barzani and the Kurdish referendum for what it is; a Zionist plot. Meanwhile, on Sunday, it was also reported that Erdogan and Rouhani had held a phone conversation discussing the referendum, while Iraq and Turkey have agreed to hasty military exercises close to the Iraq-Turkey border. This, coupled with Damascus opposition to the creation of a Kurdish state, presents a unique situation where Tehran, Ankara, Damascus and Baghdad are all united on a question. These countries can and will overcome their differences and otherwise conflicting objectives in Syria in order to prevent the creation of a Kurdish state.

Turkey, Washington’s ally in the region has voiced strong opposition to the Iraqi Kurdish referendum, despite the KRG-Turkish relations prior to this being excellent. Turkish president Erdogan went as far as threatening military intervention stating that “Our military is not (at the border) for nothing. He also added: “We could arrive suddenly one night.”

Whether Erdogan will “arrive suddenly one night” or not is uncertain. What however is for certain is that the US is not concerned about Erdogan and Turkey’s reaction to the establishment of a Kurdish state in both Iraq and Syria even though Washington and Ankara are supposedly allies. Erdogan has since last year’s coup d’état attempt been considered a loose cannon for Washington and applying pressure on Ankara and a Turkish leader, who keeps cooperating with Russia and Iran against Washington’s objectives might not seem a bad idea for the US.

Turkey feels that it has been betrayed by the US. Ankara seeks closer ties to Tehran and Moscow because it feels that Turkish calls to halt Syrian Kurdish advances on its southern borders are being ignored by Washington and the West. As mentioned, Turkey, along with all concerned states will do whatever it takes to prevent the creation of Kurdistan. It is for this reason that Turkey sent its forces into Al-Bab, disregarding Washington’s warnings and prevented Rojava from linking up with the Afrin canton and occupying all of northern Syria. It is also for this reason that Iran and the Hashd Al-Shaabi forces closed the path for US forces in southern Syria, thus preventing any further US occupation along the Syrian-Iraqi border. In Syria, the Kurdish “federation” will likely push Damascus and Ankara into deeper cooperation, setting aside their differences.

It is clear why the Anglo-Zionist Empire wants to partition Iraq and Syria. It is also clear that Barzani is not insane, he would not go down this path if it was a suicidal one. He knows that he can count on international recognition to protect his ambitions of a Kurdish state when the time comes, despite verbal rejection from the US and the UK today. Despite an independent Kurdistan being surrounded by powerful hostile states, there are other countries in the region ready to support it, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia. Israel has openly declared its support for a Kurdish state, this should not come as a surprise, but Saudi Arabia has often been overlooked.

The Syrian Kurdish leader Salih Muslim Muhammad has already praised Saudi Arabia’s role in Syria and attacked Iran, it is only a matter of time before Barzani does the same with the KRG’ neighbours being hostile and Saudi Arabia happily wanting to pull the Kurds into its sphere of influence to use against Iran.

Project Kurdistan is the final chapter of the Anglo-Zionist plan to change the map of the Middle East. The US actions are polarizing the Middle East beyond anything previously seen during our lifetime. The end of the so called Islamic State by next year is certain, the future and survival of the region however is in danger.